There is a quiet stubbornness to people born in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not theatrical. It is not the loud sabre-rattling of social media performativity. It is a lived preference for being measured by personal standards rather than public applause. You see it in the way they answer a compliment with a half smile and change the subject. You feel it when they decline to post every accomplishment online. Psychology gives us clues about why that is the case and why this tendency matters in a world that rewards the opposite.
Why the era you grew up in shapes who you seek approval from
Childhood contexts leave fingerprints. For those who were children in the late 1960s through the 1970s the scaffolding of daily life was different. Adults who raised them were shaped by postwar expectations and economic shifts that rewarded practical competence. Schools handed out expectations not participation trophies. Community networks were denser and less mediated by screens. Those structural realities nudged priorities toward internal measures of worth rather than the constant external mirrors we accept today.
Psychology of validation versus internal standards
Psychologists distinguish between contingent self esteem and intrinsic self standards. Contingent self esteem depends on external approval. Intrinsic standards rely on internal benchmarks you set and revise. Those born in the 1960s and 1970s show, at population level, higher rates of the latter. That does not mean invulnerability. It means their emotional calibration often defaults to whether they met a personal standard rather than how many likes an image received.
This is partly generational habit and partly developmental economics. When household economies required skills rather than branding to survive people learned the immediate value of competence. Repair the washing machine and you have a working appliance. Teach a skill and you receive reciprocal reputation. This ties self worth to tangible mastery.
Social structures taught a different currency
In the 1970s a letter in the post mattered. A compliment arrived in person with tone and context. Reputation was not instantly amplified or reduced by a global audience. These subtle differences trained a generation to treat social feedback as one input among many. The human tendency to overweight recent or vivid feedback was less weaponised by mass digital platforms. The result: less habitual chasing of public affirmation.
There is also a socialisation technique to consider. Many people from these cohorts were what psychologists call observational learners who had to figure things out by watching adults navigate real world problems. Observation sharpens self-reliance. It produces a kind of quiet confidence that makes external validation optional but not irrelevant.
Resilience not as a moral badge but as a behavioural pattern
Resilience in this context is not presented as a virtue in a speech. It is a pattern formed by repeated encounters with manageable adversity. These were often episodes with no audience where the problem required a private fix. The neural circuits that moderate reward and punishment learn to value problem solving itself. Over time this creates internal reward loops that compete with the novel reward loops social media now generates.
To be clear I do not romanticise. Some people born in these decades internalised shame and silence as much as independence. Still, at group level the tendency to prefer private calibration over public scoreboard is noticeable.
Technology changed the incentives for attention
The advent of social platforms rewired attention economies. Where attention was once costly and intermittent it became cheap and continuous. That shift magnified the appeal of external validation for cohorts who grew up after the 1980s. For those who matured before the flood the old incentives remain partially intact. Their prior developmental environment taught them to place trust in direct feedback and long term reputational capital rather than instantaneous applause.
This divergence explains many everyday frictions. Younger colleagues who post constantly may be baffled by the older manager who refuses to broadcast small wins. Meanwhile older adults sometimes judge younger people as performative while younger people read the older generation as aloof. Both perceptions miss the structural histories that produced these habits.
Expert perspective
“Ive been researching generational differences for 25 years and what I find is that technology alters the rhythms and social scaffolding that raise a generation.” Jean M Twenge Professor of Psychology San Diego State University
Twenges work on generational cohorts is controversial but useful here because it highlights how different social inputs produce different psychological outcomes. When the input is face to face community and delayed feedback the output looks like people who need less immediate external validation.
What this looks like in daily life
It surfaces in small behaviours. Someone declines to tag themselves in a public post though they were present. An email of praise is acknowledged privately. A career milestone is noted in a family WhatsApp rather than splashed across public channels. Those actions spring from preference not snobbery. They also produce different social experiences. Less public celebration can mean fewer public allies. It can also mean less emotional volatility tied to internet attention spikes.
I want to push back against two lazy takes. First the idea that seeking less external validation equals emotional maturity across the board. Sometimes it masks disengagement or fear of vulnerability. Second the thought that this is immutable. People adapt. Adults in their fifties and sixties now use platforms when the payoff is clear. Their starting point however tends to remain private standards.
Why employers and families should care
Understanding these tendencies reduces misreading. Managers who expect public self promotion as proof of contribution may penalise those who work steadily without fanfare. Families who equate social media presence with engagement risk misjudging affection. When institutions appreciate different validation economies they can design recognition that speaks both to private benchmarks and public accolades.
Recognition does not require spectacle. A handwritten note. A quiet mention in a team meeting. A long term trust in responsibility. These fit the psychological wiring of people raised before attention became monetised.
Final reflections
There is a stubborn dignity in preferring internal measures of worth. I find it useful and, frankly, a relief. But it can feel like a quiet exile in a culture that rewards the visible. The conversation we need is not which generation is right but how we can translate different ways of valuing into institutions that do not punish discretion or reward performative claims unfairly.
The story of generational differences is messy and ongoing. Some parts of it will behave like patterns and other parts will surprise us. That uncertainty is fine. It keeps the argument honest.
Summary table
| Key idea | What it means |
|---|---|
| Early life contexts | Raised with face to face feedback and practical tasks which favor internal standards. |
| Validation mechanisms | External approval is one input among many rather than the dominant currency. |
| Technology gap | Pre internet cohorts have fewer rewarded loops built around instant public attention. |
| Behavioural expressions | Less public boasting more private recognition and competence oriented pride. |
| Practical implication | Design recognition systems that respect both private and public forms of validation. |
FAQ
Are people born in the 1960s and 1970s immune to needing validation?
No. They are not immune. Human beings always need others. The difference is in the default weighting of internal versus external cues. People from these cohorts often default to internal benchmarks but still seek reassurance in relationships work and family. The key difference lies in frequency and the platforms where they look for approval.
Can younger people learn this approach?
Yes they can. The habits of seeking internal validation can be practised by anyone. It requires deliberate exercises such as setting personal standards tracking outcomes and resisting immediate public reaction. Practitioners often report greater emotional stability though this is not a universal remedy. Learning happens over time and through consistent practice.
Does this mean older generations are better at work?
Not inherently. Different validation preferences suit different roles. Some jobs reward visible advocacy others reward quiet craftsmanship. The practical point is to align recognition and appraisal with the type of contribution expected rather than forcing one style of validation onto everyone.
How do families bridge generational differences in validation?
Communication helps. Name the difference and explain why certain forms of recognition matter to each person. Create rituals that satisfy both preferences. For example celebrate publicly for those who want it and follow up with private conversations for those who prefer discretion. Small adaptations prevent feelings of neglect and avoid misread intentions.
Is this trend changing as these cohorts age?
Yes things change. Exposure to new technologies shifting social norms and intergenerational mixing alter patterns. Many people adapt without losing their baseline preference. Others embrace public visibility pragmatically when it serves career or social goals. Patterns evolve but origins still influence typical responses.
